By John Ferrannini

The San Francisco Department of Elections confirmed on May 29 the petition to recall District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio contained 10,523 valid signatures, above the required threshold of 9,911 signatures needed.

The recall was sparked by Engardio’s support of Proposition K, a measure that permanently closed the Upper Great Highway to vehicle traffic to make way for a new city park, called Sunset Dunes.

“We’re very pleased to cross this milestone,” said Otto Pippenger, field director for the recall. “We expected the final results to be in line with our sampling, but we are of course happy to see that become reality.”

Engardio believes he can overcome the groundswell of District 4 residents opposed to him serving out a full term.

“I’m confident that Sunset voters will see through this recall,” he said. “I hear every day from residents who are tired of distractions and appreciate having a supervisor who shows up and delivers. I will campaign hard every day and continue to show up for District 4 so I can serve my community for my full term.”

The special election will take place in less than three months.

“With the petition deemed sufficient, the Department will proceed with preparations for a special municipal election, which will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 16,” John Arntz wrote in a press release. Arntz is the director of the SF Department of Elections.

“Only voters registered and residing in Supervisorial District 4 will be eligible to participate in this election,” the release reported.”

At a May 22 City Hall rally before recall proponents submitted signatures, speakers underscored what they saw as a betrayal of the district by Engardio. While the measure was approved citywide, large majorities on the west side voted against it.

Albert Chow, president of the neighborhood organization People of Parkside Sunset and owner of Great Wall Hardware, touted the recall campaign’s efforts at that rally.

“Those are numbers that represent people, that represent the voice of our commitment to democracy,” Chow said.

Selina Chu, a former school board candidate, said that Engardio, whom she described as a former friend, “failed to represent our Sunset community” before, during and after the change.

Before Prop. K was approved by San Francisco voters, the highway had been open to vehicle traffic on weekdays as part of a compromise brokered by Engardio’s predecessor, then-Supervisor Gordon Mar, between the factions warring over the stretch of road along Ocean Beach.

Engardio said in a 2022 debate with Mar that he supported the compromise that left the thoroughfare open to cars on weekdays.

Earlier this year, Engardio said that on his campaign website in 2022, he stated he supported the possibility of a park between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard, but that he “supported the compromise in 2022 because that was the best we had in the moment.”

Engardio added that the other side “spent 2023 and much of 2024 trying to kill the weekend compromise,” and anti-closure advocates supported a citywide vote on the Upper Great Highway back in 2022 when it was Prop. I, a measure they supported but that failed.

Chu claimed Engardio did not consult his constituents about the closure.

“He bypassed the Sunset completely when he submitted a permanent closure plan without a single town hall meeting,” she said. “When he was confronted, he pointed fingers and blamed others. He ran on promises to represent our Sunset District 4 but acted against the very people who elected him.”

Also speaking at the rally was longtime westside resident Quentin L. Kopp, a former San Francisco supervisor, San Mateo County Superior Court judge and a 1979 candidate for San Francisco mayor against the late mayor and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Kopp, 96, intoned, “Prop. K was rammed down our throat by Mr. Engardio” and that’s “what he bestows on people who counted on him to protect their way of life.”

“It’s gratifying to see that the hard work of both collecting and pre-validating is appearing to conform to our intent,” Otto Pippenger, a field director for the recall campaign, said at the May 22 rally about the Election Department’s verification at that point.

“We aimed to have as close to a 100% validity rate as possible,” he stated. “We’ve tried to save the DoE as much unnecessary work as possible. At the end of the day, it’s in their hands, but the truth is that we expect the remainder of the count to show a very similar percentage to what we’ve seen in the initial sampling. A lot of very good people put a lot of volunteer time and effort in to meet our threshold of quality, and my colleagues and I are honored to have been able to help D4 voters utilize their democratic rights.”

Engardio replied to a request for a comment by discussing his efforts to stay in office. He also stated he has “knocked on thousands of doors in recent months, visited every small business in the Sunset, and met with constituents at community meetings and neighborhood social events,” and that he is “working with SFMTA (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) to further improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety.”

Engardio also asked residents to reconsider the Sunset Dunes park.

“I invite people to explore Sunset Dunes and our coast in new ways,” he stated. “The coast belongs to everyone and now it’s more accessible to people than ever. Come experience this space to be reminded that joy and a positive connection to humanity and nature can exist in today’s world.”

Lucas Lux, the president of Friends of Sunset Dunes, added his thoughts.

“Sunset Dunes receives more visitors every weekend than the recall gathered signatures over 120 days,” Lux stated. “We’ll wait to hear from the Department of Elections on whether the recall qualifies,” he said before results were announced, “but neither result will distract us from helping San Franciscans enjoy the beautiful coast at their new park.”

Engardio said he had faith the recall effort will fail.

“I’m confident that a majority of Sunset voters will oppose it.”

“I hear from many residents who approve of the job I’m doing,” he stated. “Some who initially opposed the park now say they like it. They realize the recall is misguided because it’s about my role in offering people a choice about what to do with their coast. I supported an open and transparent democratic process where everyone had an equal say at the ballot box. And everyone had ample opportunity to campaign for and against the issue.

“A recall won’t reopen the Great Highway, and it sets a bad precedent for recalling officials over a single policy disagreement,” he continued. “If there’s a recall every time we disagree with one issue, we won’t have a functioning government. I appreciate the support of thousands of residents who are standing with me. Every week that goes by, as traffic redirects to where it needs to go and the park becomes more popular, we will see how the benefits surpass any costs and concerns.”

Engardio campaign strategist Josh Raznick stated May 27 that, “Nothing has been decided yet.”

A spokesperson for the Engardio campaign claimed several people have asked for their names to be removed from recall petitions because they had signed it under the impression that it would reopen the Upper Great Highway to vehicle traffic.

Indeed, James Smith, a District 7 resident and attorney, said that on the weekend of May 10-11, he was outside a Taraval Street Walgreens when “a woman outside with a clipboard” said, “Do you want to sign this? It’s to put cars back on the Great Highway.”

Smith said he didn’t answer her, but when she insisted by asking again and handing the clipboard toward him, “I responded, ‘No. I don’t want to put cars back on the Great Highway, and more importantly, that’s not what the ballot measure says,’ and then she didn’t say anything in response to that. It was crazy enough. It was clearly scripted.”

Smith said he wrote down the interaction because he was “stunned.” He said he is not part of Engardio’s campaign to stay in office.

Jamie Hughes, who had worked on former Supervisor Aaron Peskin’s 2024 mayoral campaign, helped take over the recall effort from Vin Budhai after Budhai resigned May 13. Budhai did not return a request for comment for this report, but he shared a statement with the San Francisco Standard.

“This decision comes after ongoing creative and strategic differences regarding the direction and execution of the effort,” Budhai said. “I wish the committee and all those involved in the campaign continued success as they carry this effort forward.”

Unnamed sources told the Standard it was a dispute over spending.

Pippenger said Smith’s story is “absolutely untrue,” and said it “has no relation to Vin’s departure.”

“This is all the result of a desperate last-minute effort on Joel’s part to avoid democratic accountability; his team has been searching for, and encouraging, his core supporters to make such claims,” Pippenger stated. “The substance of our campaign is, and always has been, about Joel’s betrayal of his constituents; a supervisor who feels he is responsible to a few oligarchs rather than a vast majority of his actual constituents. A recall obviously is only a recall, and Joel is trying to avoid this one with increasingly desperate grasps for a magic solution to undo this broad, popular, and frankly, deserved recall.”

Engardio declined to comment on the allegation, but his campaign strategist Raznick stated that, “We are very concerned about the drumbeat of allegations we continue to hear about the recall (campaign) misleading and lying to voters, just like what James experienced. Deceit and lies seem to have become a hallmark of the recall campaign. Just today (May 21), another Sunset voter sent a request to the Department of Elections asking to withdraw their signature. I wonder how many people signed the recall on false pretenses?”

In addition to the recall effort, there is an ongoing jurisdiction and CEQA lawsuit to reopen the roadway that will be heard by a Superior Court judge in early June.